Procedures for contradictory sources[edit]

Bernheim (1889) and Langlois & Seignobos (1898) proposed a seven-step procedure for source
[5]
criticism in history:

1. If the sources all agree about an event, historians can consider the event proven.
2. However, majority does not rule; even if most sources relate events in one way,
that version will not prevail unless it passes the test of critical textual analysis.
3. The source whose account can be confirmed by reference to outside authorities
in some of its parts can be trusted in its entirety if it is impossible similarly to
confirm the entire text.
4. When two sources disagree on a particular point, the historian will prefer the
source with most "authority"—that is the source created by the expert or by the
eyewitness.
5. Eyewitnesses are, in general, to be preferred especially in circumstances where
the ordinary observer could have accurately reported what transpired and, more
specifically, when they deal with facts known by most contemporaries.
6. If two independently created sources agree on a matter, the reliability of each is
measurably enhanced.
7. When two sources disagree and there is no other means of evaluation, then
historians take the source which seems to accord best with common sense.
Subsequent descriptions of historical method, outlined below, have attempted to overcome the
credulity built into the first step formulated by the nineteenth century historiographers by stating
principles not merely by which different reports can be harmonized but instead by which a
statement found in a source may be considered to be unreliable or reliable as it stands on its
own.

Core principles for determining reliability[edit]

The following core principles of source criticism were formulated by two Scandinavian historians,
[6]
Olden-Jørgensen (1998) and Thurén Torsten (1997):

● Human sources may be relics such as a fingerprint; or narratives such as a statement

or a letter. Relics are more credible sources than narratives.
● Any given source may be forged or corrupted. Strong indications of the originality of
the source increase its reliability.
● The closer a source is to the event which it purports to describe, the more one can
trust it to give an accurate historical description of what actually happened.
● An eyewitness is more reliable than testimony at second hand, which is more reliable
than hearsay at further remove, and so on.
● If a number of independent sources contain the same message, the credibility of the
message is strongly increased.
● The tendency of a source is its motivation for providing some kind of bias.
Tendencies should be minimized or supplemented with opposite motivations.
● If it can be demonstrated that the witness or source has no direct interest in creating
bias then the credibility of the message is increased.

Criteria of Authenticity[edit]
Historians sometimes have to deal with deciding what is genuine and what is not in a source. For
such circumstances, there are external and internal "criteria of authenticity" that are
[7][8]
applicable. These are technical tools for evaluating sources and separating 'genuine' sources
[9]
or content from forgeries or manipulation.
External criteria involve issues relating to establishing authorship of a source or range of
sources. It involves th